I never said it did. If you like I can restructure that line to read 'Does the person who opposes socialism want to hear about the family that was saved by welfare programs?' if you like. My point still stands.

I think it's a matter of degree and the US is inching toward the major services either supervised or regulated in some form or fashion.

There are a few bits which likely ought to be regulated to include defense.

The feds probably do have a good reason to break up monopolies like ma bell -- for the purpose of breaking up monopoly boards and promotifying competition.

Take my wife. Please. It's one thing for my sweet wife to waltz into the kitchen when I'm cooking and tell me the beans need more Adobo. That's just being helpful. It's another thing for her to start micromanaging the entire meal from the comfort of her bar stool. Here's hoping lung cancer shows up right?

I would be more inclined to support Republicans if they actually stood by this. What economic benefit is there to regulating marriage? Or morals? Republicans that I've seen are not for less government, they're for different government. Different regulations. Different controls. Not less of them. The Republicans sell a moral guardian nanny state, while the Democrats sell an economic nanny state. While neither is my preferred government style, I know which one I'm picking in the end.

Quote:

My kids need to know that "if it's gonna be, it's up to me" and that sugar daddy or Uncle Sam isn't going to be there for them in time of need unless they do something like enlist (I support that big league).

Isn't or shouldn't? I think many countries around the world have shown it's possible. Whether they should or shouldn't is an entirely different topic.

I apologize if I failed to make this clear enough, but all I was saying is that people have a tendency to compartmentalize in terms of 'good and evil' and not 'different'. That doesn't necessarily mean that they won't regret their actions later, but on the same note, it doesn't mean they necessarily will either. Humans are kind of quirky like that. Two people can experience the same thing and come away from it with 6 separate opinions. Some people enjoy inflicting harm on others due, in part, to their experiences, while others with similar or the same experiences abhor it completely. Put both people in a situation where they deem it justified to inflict harm on another, and while they will both do it, only one of them will regret it.

That also doesn't mean that it's what SHOULD happen either. I view this observation purely for what it is. An observation. Personally I would much prefer that people acted in the way you describe, in which people can oppose something without disregarding its merits. Unfortunately, that seems to be increasingly rare nowadays. Hence the observation.

This ties back into our past discussions as well...but that might derail the thread even more than this has already so I'll leave it there.

I see...I can agree with that. A lot of the comments in my reply were wanderings through a flow of thought rather than directly in response to you anyway. It happens.